MINAKSHI DAS Vs. DEEP RANJAN DAS AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-79
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 17,2019

MINAKSHI DAS Appellant
VERSUS
DEEP RANJAN DAS AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present legal battle is primarily between a mother and a son, both of whom are tenants in respect of the suit premises. The plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 filed a suit alleging that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the present petitioner, being one Phonindra (since deceased), was the original tenant in respect of the suit premises. After his death on February 6, 2002, his only son, being the opposite party no. 1, and widow, being the present petitioner, inherited the tenancy. The opposite party no. 1 contends that the petitioner has been running a sweetmeat shop, under the trade name Netaji Mistanna Bhandar, as a sole proprietorship business from the suit premises. It is claimed by the petitioner that originally one Nagendra Nath Das was the tenant and used to run the said business. After his demise on September 11, 1989, Phonindra inherited the tenancy right and continued to carry on the business in the capacity of the heir of Nagendra Nath. Upon the death of Phonindra on February 6, 2002, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 and the petitioner became joint tenants in respect of the suit property.
(2.) Subsequently the landlords of the suit premises filed a suit for eviction against the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 (present petitioner) and, as per the plaint case, the said joint tenants surrendered 600 square feet out of the tenanted premises, comprised in shop nos. 6 and 10, in favour of the landlords by executing a letter of surrender dated April 28, 2016. Thereafter the plaintiff learnt that the defendant no. 1/petitioner had entered into a partnership agreement with the defendant nos. 2 and 3, who had started renovation work at the suit premises. The aforesaid developments took place behind the back, and without the consent of, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1.
(3.) On such premise, the plaintiff instituted a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 2868 of 2016, in the Eighth Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore for the following reliefs: "a) Decree for declaration that the plaintiff and his mother, the Defendant No.1 is tenant in common in respect of the suit property under the owners; b) Decree for declaration that the Defendant No. 1 has no authority to transfer and/or assign and/or part with possession and/or sublet the suit property in favour of the third party in the garb of partnership business with the Defendant Nos. 2 & 3; c) Decree for declaration that unilateral execution of the partnership execution of the Agreement for Partnership Deed dated 31.08.2016 by the Defendant No. 1 alone leaving the Plaintiff is void ab-initio and it should be treated as cancelled: d) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 and her men and agents from making any construction, addition, alteration and structural changes in the suit property; e) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from subletting and/or assigning and/or parting with possession of the suit property namely the said shop Nos. 7 & 11 or any part thereof in favour of the Defendant No. 2 & 3 or any third party, f) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants in giving effect of the Agreement for Partnership Deed dated 31.08.2016 executed by and between the Defendants; g) All costs of the suit; h) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled to under the law and in equity.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.